I'm about to buy an EOS 50e body, and I want a decent zoom lens to go with it. The choices I've got are: 70-200 F2.8L - great quality, expensive, constant 2.8 through the range, use of AF with converters 35-350 L - it's an L so good quality, even more expensive (nudging out of my price range), wide range so no other lens really needed 75-300 IS - comparatively cheap, good range, IS means handholding is more practical. (this is a bit of a wildcard - does the IS make it a better bet than the 'L' quality of the other two)

I take a wide range of subjects, both on and off tripod (though more on for longer shots). Probably the 80-200 will give the highest quality images, but is the 75-300 noticably worse, especially given its flexability, and is the IS lens more practical than the others in use?

Any opinions/advice gratefully received.

Rob.

-- Rob Day (Rob_Day@yahoo.com), February 01, 1999

Answers

You pretty much answered your own question. The 70-200L is a great lens, very versatile. It is not cheap although you can find rebates and deals.

The 35-350 is a good idea but not a great performer. It's also a push-pull zoom.

The 75-300 IS is not very fast focusing.

I have a 70-200L. With a 2x, it becomes a 140-400 f/5.6. The 1.4x makes it a 98-280 f/4. You can put Kenko or Canon extension tubes and/or a Canon 500D closeup lens on it for macro work. Yes, it's a tripod mount lens, but it's very versatile.

-- Dick Ginkowski (dickg@execpc.com), February 02, 1999.

To add to Dick's points, the 70-200L is the only lens with an f2.8 aperture, especially at the long end. If you want background, and foreground blur, the only way to get it is with a large aperture. I have a fixed 200/2.8L, and am very pleased with the pictures it can produce.

The 70-200L will give you a viewfinder that it 2 stops brighter. It can stop action better (one quarter the shutter speed), and if you're using a tripod anyway, IS doesn't work. The only down side is that you lose 300mm. I used to own a regular 75-300 zoom before the 200/2.8, and so far I haven't missed it.

All things considered, if you can afford it, and you already have something shorter, the 70-200L should be the choice.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), February 02, 1999.

If you go to Phil's main photo.net page, you'll see a listing for "Canon" under equipment. There are some very useful user-reviews of lenses there, including ones for two of the lenses you are considering. Give it a try!

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), February 02, 1999.